6.2 Price-discriminating monopolist
Perfect price discrimination
If the monopolist can identify buyers by their reservation values and set different prices for different buyers, and buyers do not have the possibility of trading between themselves, then even if it sets a price for each buyer just below her reservation value, that buyer will still purchase the good. Assuming that a buyer who is faced with a price equal to her reservation value buys the good (she is indifferent between doing so and not buying) then the monopolist's optimal strategy is clear: set a price for each buyer equal to her reservation value.(Note that if the buyers can trade between themselves then this strategy may come unstuck: buyers with low reservation values may be able to buy many units of the good, and re-sell some of them to buyers with high reservation values. In some cases, a monopolist can prevent such trades. For example, in the case of admission to a movie, admission may be granted to an adult only if she is in possession of an adult ticket.)
How much should the monopolist produce in this case? So long as there is a buyer whose reservation price exceeds the monopolist's marginal cost, it is in the interest of the monopolist to sell to that buyer. Thus the monopolist will produce the output y for which MC(y) is equal to P(y). That is,
the optimal output of a perfectly discriminating monopolist is Pareto stable!In this outcome the monopolist gets all the surplus, so unless the monopolist is needy the outcome is not likely to be equitable---but it is Pareto stable.
Ordinary price discrimination
A monopolist cannot usually discriminate perfectly between buyers, since it does not know each buyer's reservation price. Nevertheless, it may be able to charge different prices to different types of buyer, achieving some degree of discrimination. (For example, Bell Canada charges different prices to businesses and to individuals; airline charge different prices to people who can reserve in advance and those who cannot.)Suppose that the monopolist can separate the market into two parts, one in which the inverse demand function is P1 and one in which it is P2. Then its total revenue functions in the two markets are TR1(y) = yP1(y) and TR2(y) = yP2(y). The monopolist's profit-maximization problem in this case is to choose outputs y1 and y2 for the markets to solve
At a solution to this problem the value of y1 must maximize profit, given the value of y2, and the value of y2 must maximize profit, given the value of y1. Thus the following conditions must be satisfied:
Relation with the elasticity of demand
We have MR(y) = P(y)[1 − 1/|η(y)|], where η(y) is the elasticity of demand at y. Thus if y*1 and y*2 satisfy the conditions above then
|
= |
|
. |
Thus if |η1| > |η2| then p1 < p2. [Try η1 = −4 and η2 = −2: then p1/p2 = (1−1/2)/(1 − 1/4) = (1/2)(4/3) = 2/3.]
That is:
a monopolist charges a lower price in a market in which demand is more elastic.
- Example: ordinary price discrimination
-
In market 1 we have Qd(p) = 10 − p/2 while in market 2 we have Qd(p) = 32 − 2p. The monopolist's total cost function is TC(y) = y2. What outputs does the monopolist sell in each market?
We have
TR1(y1) = y1(20 − 2y1)and hence
TR2(y2) = y2(16 − y2/2)MR1(y1) = 20 − 4y1
MR2(y2) = 16 − y2.Thus the condition MR1(y*1) = MR2(y*2) = MC(y*1 + y*2) is equivalent to
20 − 4y*1 = 16 − y*2 = 2(y*1 + y*2).Isolating y*2 in the first equation we obtainy*2 = 4y*1 − 4.Plugging this into the expression 20 − 4y*1 = 2(y*1 + y*2) we obtain20 − 4y*1 = 2(y*1 + 4y*1 − 4)or28 = 14y*1ory*1 = 2,so thaty*2 = 4.(I am assuming that the first-order conditions identify a maximum rather than a minimum.)